Rustup #5691
Rustup #5691
Conversation
Rename all remaining compiler crates to use the `rustc_foo` pattern libarena -> librustc_arena libfmt_macros -> librustc_parse_format libgraphviz -> librustc_graphviz libserialize -> librustc_serialize Closes rust-lang/rust#71177 in particular.
Make `PolyTraitRef::self_ty` return `Binder<Ty>` This came up during review of #71618. The current implementation is the same as a call to `skip_binder` but harder to audit. Make it preserve binding levels and add a call to `skip_binder` at all use sites so they can be audited as part of #72507.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 5bdbc45 has been approved by |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-action_test |
|
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
|
📌 Commit 5bdbc45 has been approved by |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-action_test |
|
Problems with rls: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/runs/747024687#step:10:14 |
|
The RLS failure is because fmt_macros wasn't renamed in RLS yet. I will disable the integration test for now. |
|
@bors r=matthiaskrgr |
|
📌 Commit d9aa26a has been approved by |
|
Do we still need the rls test? I remember already caused problems recently in the past, we might want to reevaluate if it's actually worth the trouble. |
|
I can't remember what the initial policy was for the initial selection of integration test code bases. Some of them were included, because multiple ICEs were detected in them. That being said, I think that dependence on compiler internals may be an argument against having the codebase as an integration test 🤔 |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
changelog: none